I don't know how this changes anything, people who defend Pete will still defend, and people who hate him will continue to hate.

I think any Hall of Fame should be based on production to that trade alone. If we start talking character how is Joe Paterno in a Hall of Fame? Or Rick Pitino? Or John Calapari for that matter? Success in your field should be the requirement for the Hall of Fame.

 

We all have to answer for our actions as a person to gain entry into a better Hall of Fame. No need for an Earhtly one as well IMO

 

Where do stand on PED users getting in??

 

Not saying you are wrong, or that I disagree with you. Again, I'd probably vote for Pete to get in. But I don't have a real good argument to refute those who don't want him in.

Why? Because I don't buy into just because Rose was a great player (which he was) he automatically belongs in the HOF. Character for whatever reason matters in the baseball HOF to the writers that vote.

 

When they take that criteria out of the equation, then yes, he should go in.

 

Just curious, does Barry Bonds belong?

I do think it's funny the "hero-worship" status that Rose has in Cincinnati.

 

You spelled nauseating wrong.

Is it one of those silly unwritten rules in baseball that you're not supposed to bet on the team you play on?

Is it one of those silly unwritten rules in baseball that you're not supposed to bet on the team you play on?

 

This one is actually in writing...in every clubhouse.

The book, according to Dowd, also showed that in those three months Rose bet $2,500 or more on 69 games and lost 64.

 

There is no way that this is possible. If you tried you could not bet on 69 games and lose 64 No one could.

I don't think that at all. He has had chance after chance after chance to come clean, and he refused to do so. If he had just admitted it from the start he'd have been inducted in long ago.

 

I was going to make this same post. Don't have to now. :thumb:

I'm one of those guys who idolized Rose growing up (was 12 and 13 when the Reds won the WS in 75 and 76). Rose could do no wrong in my book. When he was first caught, I could not stand Dowd and thought Pete got a raw deal. Wow, was I wrong. I later (mid to late 90's) knew professionally an attorney who represented one of the guys associated in the whole mess. He actually sat in on some of the meetings when it was all going down with Rose and MLB. He said the meetings were unbelievable. MLB TOTALLY had the goods on Rose and would confront him with the evidence and he would just say "I did not bet on baseball". I think he said it so much that HE actually started believing it. I can see now why Dowd and Giamatti were so mad at Pete. They thought of him as just a pathological liar...and they were right.

 

Rose made this mess and should not be let back in BB IMO and should not be in the HOF. Gambling almost took the sport down once and MLB makes it very clear that it will not let that happen again. Pete broke the most sacred rule repeatedly and has lied about it for 25 years and is STILL lying about it. It is so sad because Pete would have been as good an ambassador for the game as the game has ever had.

^My feelings to a tee.

Come on, I did not post that. I just chuckle at the double standard holier than thou attitude MLB has taken. You don't care for Rose, I get that. I just feel what he did on the field of play deserves something. AND, MLB needs to make sure they watch every doggone player in uniform today. I really don't think that happens.

So you assume lots of players are betting today with no proof, yet we just are supposed to believe Rose never bet against the Reds or let any bet affect his game just because Pete wouldn't do that?

The book, according to Dowd, also showed that in those three months Rose bet $2,500 or more on 69 games and lost 64.

 

There is no way that this is possible. If you tried you could not bet on 69 games and lose 64 No one could.

You've obviously never seen me bet on pretty much anything.

Just curious, does Barry Bonds belong?

 

No to Bonds, Clements, and McGuire and....

So you assume lots of players are betting today with no proof, yet we just are supposed to believe Rose never bet against the Reds or let any bet affect his game just because Pete wouldn't do that?

 

Again, for those that defend Rose by saying "he never bet against the Reds".

 

Did he manage differently in the games on which he had money? What does it say about the Reds' games that hed didn't put money on?

 

Any time you bet on games that you can manipulate or control, it affects the integrity of the game.

Not to mention, you get in debt to a bookie, maybe you do something in another game to cover the debt.